There’s nothing wrong with being stubborn in the way that it is generally defined today. Being stubborn today means to believe in God when other people do not. Tolerance is accepting the fact that some people do not believe in God and not taking away their rights. It does not mean, however, that we can’t debate if we so choose. However, being stubborn means that we actually believe something.
What is wrong with believing something? Am I to be an atheist and not be “stubborn” because of tolerance? That isn’t tolerance at all. To take away my right to my beliefs is what is truly stubborn, and isn’t tolerant at all. However, voicing opinions, debating, and believing are not “stubborn.” To suggest that it is stubborn suggests that it should be changed, and what is the alternative?
The alternative has to be that you only force one viewpoint. Well, how do you do that? The only way that we have, which doesn’t work 100%, is to imprison people that disagree with us or kill them. Those solutions just cannot work. So, we do have to deal with people that have their beliefs, and we can say WHATEVER WE WANT about them. And we can have whatever other people want to say about us said. But, that also means that we can say what we want to to those people, and they can say to us what they want to say to us. What is so bad about this? Why is this “wrong”? Why is freedom perceived to be an ideal that is immoral? I’ll tell you why: because people take real problems and offer no real solutions.
For example, income disparity. Poverty is a bad problem. I don’t know any economist that says that poverty is a good thing. However, what is the solution to poverty? One of the most simple “solutions” to poverty is to have the government take from the rich in the form of taxes and give it to the poor. But this does not “solve” poverty. Many people on food stamps are still poor. So what does this ACTUALLY do? Well, it provides incentives for bad behavior and punishes good behavior. How so? Isn’t this the opposite of what the program was intended for?
Well, if you are able to receive food stamps by making poor financial decisions, you are going to make poor financial decisions. Buying a really expensive car when you can’t afford food is an extremely poor financial decision. Why do people do this? For one thing, I think it is because they misunderstand what wealth is. They think that wealth is only about expensive items. But wealth is buying what you want and need. You aren’t “wealthy” if you have a gold chain but no food to eat. Obviously, the gold has wealth, but you aren’t better off.
The other reason is because they can receive government programs by doing so. They can make themselves more poor by poor financial decisions. In order to be wealthy, you have to save intelligently. Some people don’t do that and become poor. We do not have a moral obligation to the poor in the sense that this is what we HAVE to do. I will site numerous religious examples of how we do not have moral obligations, but that rather we are free individuals under a sovereign God. This does not mean that we are free FROM God, but this means that we are free of any moral obligations that may have been required for us because God knew that we simply could not fulfill these moral obligations on our own. This is why Christ came to earth. If we want to help out the poor, we have every right to do so. But we do this on an individual basis with our own money, or the money that we pool together.
The argument becomes “because some people are rich and some people are poor, we should take from the rich and give to the poor because of inequality and poverty.” But this does not solve the problem: it merely exacerbates it. If you are poor because of bad decisions, and you know that you are still going to receive some money of people that worked harder than you and saved their money more efficiently, you have no incentive to work hard or save your money, and the person who DID work hard and save their money has less incentive to do so. This is how you create a system in which so many people rely on entitlements. Of course, what does this do?
History has shown that the more power individuals have, the more they use this power for evil. The more power that an individual has over another individual, the more his evil is exacerbated. Hitler was not an anomaly: he is the norm. Every dictatorship in history has led to plight for its people. Why? Because it is the natural tendency of man to abuse his power. So the solution to this is to give him as little power as possible, and no economic system does this more so than the free market, because where there are profits to be made, there will be companies that will have to compete with each other to obtain those profits, and their competition means that the most successful products will succeed, and when the most successful products succeed, that means that everyone receives the best possible products available to them. This means that you cannot destroy a company’s or individual’s financial success just because others aren’t successful. It only leads to a system in which the majority of people become poor, instead of being a system that provides the best opportunity for the most people to generate wealth.
That does not mean that everyone becomes “wealthy”, but it does mean that everyone becomes more wealthy and better off than any alternative system would demonstrate. That is why, in a very broad sense, why capitalism is a better financial system for everyone instead of socialism, and why stubbornness is not something that we need to completely throw out just because of disagreements, because the definition of stubbornness to most people is “you don’t believe what I believe”, so to change this means to force your opinion upon other people, and that is what is truly stubborn, not tolerant.
July 20, 2013.